The General Election Thread

[Horace]

I hate that Thatcher quote because it is always glibly trotted out and not put in context. The point she was making was that "society" is abstract and can't do anything. Society is made up of individual people and they are the ones who get things done (by conscious effort together or alone).

Academics claim that if you are being physicallly attacked in the street you are less likely to get help from a crowd of people than you are from one single person alone witnessing your plight. I think this holds true with society as a whole. We can hide behind society thinking that someone else will sort the problem out.

Britain has spent more than 10 years thinking someone else was sorting our problems out and in my view it was a waste of time and money..we have been living in a fools' paradise. Someone please bite an apple...

 

[Nigel Watts]

On the subject of Swedish school reform, there are some links from this page to academic studies which indicte success:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5271788/responding-to-the-opponents-of-swedish-schools.thtml

 

[skier-hughes]

Gervase,

I am working on that very principle under a Labour Government.

As a village agent, I empower local people to achieve their goals, they form groups, get a constitution, bid for funds and run activities they actually want.

In my two years I've helped set up a youth forum which has 26 members and now a waiting list to join. They do peer mentoring on items like alcohol misuse, drug misuse, domestic violence etc. They have helped with the Governments policy on MCat, the drug which has just been upgraded, they have helped to formualte the sexual health pilicy for our county and how it is delivered in Staffordshire. They run monthly discos for the community, doing everything themsleves, having bought their own equipment. They hep run a youth club for school years 4-7 and another one for years 7-11. They run weekly dance classes, employing a teacher to come. In the summer holidays they hold summer programmes of events for the children to keep occupied. They spoke with the advisor to the Government on Rural Affairs - Dr Stuart Burgess - and helped to formulate his report. They then spoke with the national and local press and radio about the report once it was published. They spoke with the Minister for Rural Affairs, Dan Norris on his visit. They have weekly meetings and discuss village matters, with reports being given at the monthly Parish Council meetings. They help preapre and deliver the village newsletter and also take part in many other village events, planting trees, clean up day, painting the school fence.
The last two years they've run Featherstone's Got Talent, where the 10 year old winner from 2008 went on to accompany Beverley Knight at her Wolverhampton gig, and the runner up was voted Miss Black Country and went on to the Miss England finals. This summer they hope to run a big open air concert featuring the wealth of local talent that can be found around and about.

There is also an adult group, known as The Loose Women, who help with the running of the youth clubs and also run summer holiday clubs for primary aged children etc etc.

There is a senior citizens group, who have bingo and dancercise classes, along with visits out around the country.

All this in a small village of around 3,000, which is best known for it's prison, and will shortly have the largest prison in the country which will have as many inmates as the village has residents!!

I was asked to take on this role as the village was noted as being in need. Suffering from high teenage pregnancy rates, high anti social behaviour, high domestic violence, high numbers out of work and low attainment at school.

Not an area with a high number of middle class residents, in fact the vast majority are very working class. Also, where you say people being left to sink or swim depending on wehre they live, it is the more well off areas in our county whioch are being left to sink or swim, as my role was so succsful they have expanded it to cover 9 more villages all in similar need and all being similarly working class.

 

[DaveBrigg]

The idea of schools opting out has also been tried in the US. The BBC news ran a fairly positive piece about it last week, but the throwaway comment at the end was that in half the schools the performance of pupils was the same as their 'state school' educated peers, and for a third it was worse. Standards varied far more at either end than in teh state sector.

One consequence of private organisations setting up schools is that there are far more schools catering for specific types of pupils, often on religious grounds. Having separate schools for faiths is not new of course, but many C of E and Catholic schools still admit those of other faiths, or of none. If a city has separate schools for Sikhs, Muslims, jews, Hindus, Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Agnostics etc it may please their parents, but we would end up in a situation like Northern Ireland, where divisions in society are reinforced, to the detriment of the community.

In Doncaster, a Christian group took over a local school. There were some benefits: more money, pupils given new uniforms etc. There were also a lot of experienced staff who left rather than be dictated to about curriculum details by someone with no classroom experience. Then, within months, there was a spate of exclusions. Pupils were kicked out for such things as having incorrect uniform, or being caught with a cigarette. Cynics observed that those expelled tended to be the lowest performing students, at most risk of damaging the school's position in the league tables. Whereas in a state school there is some accountability when excluding pupils, for the academy there was none. Other local schools were inundated by dozens of excluded pupils. Doncaster is still waiting for someone philanthropist to set up an academy for the less able, or those who need help overcoming discipline problems.

 

[Flyfisher]

Flyfisher - your earlier assessment of the link between wealth and education was not so far from what I think, and just making people rich overnight won't help. However, while we still have inequalities, it is the children who are the victims. We have pupils with no internet access, no room of their own to do homework and parents on shiftwork who are asleep or absent in the morning and afternoons. These problems are not insurmountable, but they must all be overcome just to reach the starting point of others. If parents cannot or will not provide support, I don't want the rug to be pulled from under the children's feet just to fund my £3 a week for being married.

Yes, I entirely agree it's the children who suffer. I don't pretend to know the answer but I'm not convinced about the state acting as surrogate parents. Isn't it amazing the hoops that those wishing to adopt have to jump through to be deemed 'suitable' while bone-idle, feckless wasters are lavished with all the support the state can muster. I wonder what the success rate is? We already add fluoride to the water without asking people, how about adding a contraceptive and then only prescribing the antidote to those people who can measure up to the existing adoption criteria?

Yes, I know, civil liberties, human rights, blah blah blah. And, truth be told, I'd be completely against such intervention as well, but I do despair sometimes because - as you rightly say - it is the children that suffer and often seemed doomed to repeat the cycle, while the parents just carry on regardless.

 

[Flyfisher]

(But it will only be the small change after the rich have had their tax break.)

What's this 'tax break' for the rich? Have I missed something? Or is it the raising of inheritance tax so that people who have actually done something with their lives, accumulated some wealth, paid their taxes (at a much higher rate than most), don't actually have their after-tax savings plundered yet again by the taxman?

 

[Matt Green]

On the subject of Swedish school reform, there are some links from this page to academic studies which indicte success:

Gosh, a pro-Tory-policy article from The Spectator...it must be objective.

Then, within months, there was a spate of exclusions. Pupils were kicked out for such things as having incorrect uniform, or being caught with a cigarette. Cynics observed that those expelled tended to be the lowest performing students, at most risk of damaging the school's position in the league tables.

Exactly the same as at the state grammar school i went to* 20 years ago then. The plucky untutored kids that manged to brute force the 12+ (as was) were weeded out- especially the ones that couldn't afford the art materials/technical drawing kit/sports equipment/school trips. :x

*I hesitate to use the term 'educated'

 

[Matt Green]

(But it will only be the small change after the rich have had their tax break.)

What's this 'tax break' for the rich? Have I missed something?

You may have done. Here you go:

http://johannhari.com/2010/04/09/if-youre-looking-for-class-war-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies

 

[Penners]

Gosh, a pro-Tory-policy article from The Spectator...it must be objective.

Well, I can name a few people who'll object to it.

 

[johnandrew]

(But it will only be the small change after the rich have had their tax break.)

What's this 'tax break' for the rich? Have I missed something? Or is it the raising of inheritance tax so that people who have actually done something with their lives, accumulated some wealth, paid their taxes (at a much higher rate than most), don't actually have their after-tax savings plundered yet again by the taxman?

(my emphasis)

Large increases in property values over the last however many years haven't been earned through work. And they haven't been taxed.

 

[Nigel Watts]

(But it will only be the small change after the rich have had their tax break.)

What's this 'tax break' for the rich? Have I missed something?

You may have done. Here you go:

http://johannhari.com/2010/04/09/if-youre-looking-for-class-war-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies

If a thief is forced to give back a small part of what he has stolen it is stretching the meaning of English to say that this is a handout to the victim. But this is exactly the logic used by those on the left to attack those who favour reducing punitive taxes. A smaller state with less tax for everybody and a corresponding stimulus to enterprise and economic growth is what we need. Gordon had postponed the possibility of reaching this point by his reckless spending in the run up to the economic crisis.

 

[Flyfisher]

Large increases in property values over the last however many years haven't been earned through work. And they haven't been taxed.

So what? Anyway, isn't it a good thing to be able to pass some wealth onto one's children, giving them a helping hand, maybe even (gosh!) helping to fund their university fees or put a deposit on their first house and generally helping them to become financially independent of the state?

No, of course not. Because the feckless parents won't bother and couldn't care less but will soon cry foul when little Johnny in the same school as their darlings Chardonnay, Dwayne, Jordan and Tyson fares much better in lessons because his parents care about his progress and might even (shock, horror!) pay for extra tuition. Of course, it's not fair 'cos Johnny's parents are 'rich' - possibly meaning they're actually working for a living or but, in any case, that they are actually committed to the success of thir children instead of blaming any failings on the schools and the teachers.

Inequality is a fact of life and it's a shame that people can't deal with it more honestly. Of course, the above rant is just that, a rant. But there are plenty of people who, despite humble origins, have become wealthy (whatever that means) through hard work, commitment and, no doubt, a bit of luck as well. I'm sure the reverse is also true. But, for goodness sake, do we really want the state micro-managing our lives with the goal of making everyone equal? Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

when you add it all up, a tycoon still scandalously pays a lower proportion of his income in tax than his secretary.

Can someone explain how this is calculated?
When I make a spreadsheet showing income together with the tax and NI paid in each bracket, every increase in salary results in a bigger percentage of total deductions. I can see no point at which the percentage deductions FALL as salary increases.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Flyfisher - excellent rant. Between you and Nigel you have the well argued, conservative corner, well... cornered! I just added the occasional populist bilge from the side-lines!

As for the tax guff about proportion of income - it's because they'll include indirect "consumption" taxes - like VAT in with the income-based taxes. Given rich and poor alike can only consume a finite amount regadless of total income, then the direct and indirect taxes added together are a greater proportion of someone on low income/benefits than someone on a higher income.

Like so much from the left, it is the politics of envy. So, people who work hard and earn more turn out to have more discretionary/disposable income than those on lower incomes/benefits. Shocker! :shock: If you ask me, that is one of the key incentives to study hard and work hard and play by the rules. There has to be some incentive for the income-tax paying minority in this country who are paying for the whole bloody sharabanc!

As for property-based wealth not being taxed. Well, both CGT and Stamp Duty apply to house sales (although the former only applies to second and subsequent homes I believe).

 

[Gervase]

little Johnny in the same school as their darlings Chardonnay, Dwayne, Jordan and Tyson

I thought bring class into the debate was now infra dig.
One could perhaps argue that inherited wealth saps the work ethic and encourages indolence, fecklessness and dissolution. Certainly that's the view of both Bill Gates and Richard Branson, while one only has to look at the way nature's pruning hook has swept through scions of the British aristocracy to see the principle in action. I'll see your Wayne, Dwayne and Tyson and raise you a Bristol, Blandford, Channing and Savile.
And if that's the best argument the Conservative corner can muster then the Tories really are sunk - it may well have made the writer hit the submit button with the self-satisfied 'ha' of the inveterate Blimp, but I'm afraid it's pretty unconvincing for a working man like me.

 

[Flyfisher]

Ah, tax on expenditure, yes I'd forgotten about that. Easily fixed though, just abolish spending taxes and increase income taxes to compensate. Or vice versa. :wink: It's the old joke about air only being free because the government hasn't figured out how to tax it yet! Taxed when you earn it, taxed when you spend it and taxed on anything remaining when you die. :roll:

Good point about stamp duty on buying a house. Also out of already-taxed income!

A long time ago, I recall reading an article that explained how almost all money (I think it was up in the 95%+ range) ends up in the government coffers. I've no idea where I read it ('twas pre-web that's for sure) but can remember my first reaction being 'rubbish', but when you think it through it's probably about right.

But, as I think I've said before, it's in the government's interest (of any colour) to have a complex tax system because they can then duck-and-dive at budget time and play the old give-and-take game. Imagine if there was only income tax. That's all. No VAT, no petrol tax, no other when-you-spend-it tax, nothing. Even keeping a progressive tax system the rates would have to be well over 50%, which I suspect would be politically unacceptable, albeit honest. But that's the reality of what we already pay.

 

[Flyfisher]

I thought bring class into the debate was now infra dig.

Sorry Gervase, I thought everyone would realise I wasn't being entirely serious. I did say it was just a rant. I also said there were plenty of cases where wealthy individuals had quandered their inheritance. Of course fecklessness can be found across all social strata.

But how about addressing the underlying issues? Why is progressive taxation fair? Why is council tax (i.e. a property-based tax) fair? Why was the "poll tax" not a fairer way of getting individual people to contribute to local services based on their consumption rather than the size of their house? Why is stamp duty on buying a house out of already-taxed income fair? I can see why such taxes appeal to large numbers of people, but I can't actually see why they are fair.

There, I didn't even mention the word 'envy'. Oops.

 

[Pford75]

DaveBrigg wrote:
Then, within months, there was a spate of exclusions. Pupils were kicked out for such things as having incorrect uniform, or being caught with a cigarette. Cynics observed that those expelled tended to be the lowest performing students, at most risk of damaging the school's position in the league tables

I'll probably get shot down for this, but here goes anyway. Firstly, I simply do not believe that anyone has ever been excluded from a school for a single occasion of incorrect uniform. If anyone can point to a case, then I am prepared to revise this opinion. However, I have seen children (and their parents) who simply refuse to follow the simple uniform rules at schools. I'm talking about children who attend school with jewellery/piercings, who wear trainers when every other child is wearing shoes, who think than red-dyed mohican haircuts are appropriate for 8 year olds.

Now, some may argue that they like mohicans, that they think facial piercings look 'cool' on children. That's fine...but the point is that it's not down to personal choice....there are rules. School is as much about learning discipline as it is learning anything from textbooks. It is preparing people for the real world where appearances matter, where sometimes you have to do something simply because 'those are the rules'.

If you don't wish to play by the rules, then don't expect to attend school - School is provided for the many, not for the minority of 'disruptors'.

As for smoking at school - If the child was under 16, then I would expect some sort of penalty. But perhaps breaking the law isn't important to some people?

As for the cynical suggestion that low performers were 'targeted' for expulsion...has it ever occurred that perhaps there is a correlation between poor discipline & low academic attainment? It shouldn't surprise anyone here that the 'toublemakers' are typically also low academic attainers.

 

[Gervase]

But how about addressing the underlying issues?

Actually, perhaps we should. Seeing as the Conservatives are so keen on all things Swedish, can we expect our taxation and public services to match the Swedish model? :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

I really don't want to be richer than others. I don't want to be poorer either. The Tories have a long standing tradition of being the party that supports wealth and maintains poverty at the level at which it doesn't threaten the wealthy. Labour, in the necessary bid for the middle ground have abandoned socialism, the centre left being divided between Lib Dems and Labour. Voting Lib Dem is now the only way to change things.

And none of the three big parties dare mention Peak Oil.

 

[Pford75]

I really don't want to be richer than others. I don't want to be poorer either.

I know it's your personal view Biff, but I find this a deeply depressing picture of the possible future. Everyone the same, no reason to try hard, no reason for effort, no reason for innovation, inspiration or risk.

If I knew that whatever my efforts, whatever my results the outcome would be the same as the council-house tenanted slob, why would I have spent large chunks of my career working 70 hour weeks, slogging away when I could just do the bare minimum?

Innovation, technological advancement and increases in standards of living rarely happen by accident...they mostly tend to result from someone working extra hard or taking personal risk. In my view, the communist model (for that is how I see it) destroys this and everyone is encouraged to look to the state for solutions.

Not getting at you (we all look at things differently and I can at least understand your motivation, even if I don't feel the same)...but can you understand the frustration of those who work harder/longer to produce results, only to have it 'redistributed' by the state to some who have done nothing to earn it?